was it subject to the laws of any government, unless the rule which exists from necessity is applied, that every vessel on the high seas is constructively a part of the territory of the nation to which she belongs, and its laws are operative on board of her." It held that the law of New York was applicable, thus illustrating the rule that a vessel on the high seas, entirely beyond the territorial boundaries of the nation to which she belongs, is constructively a part of the territory of that nation, and that that nation furnishes the law for the vessel.

Although the case of Norman v. Norman (8) was not expressly decided on such a principle, it is consistent with it. That was an action to declare void a marriage solemnized on board a vessel from California, because the marriage ceremony had not been performed according to the requirements of the law of California. The court held that the parties had not entered into the marriage relation, as they had not followed the California statute in performing the ceremony. The case is explainable on the basis that the vessel was a floating part of California, and that the statutory method of solemnizing a marriage prescribed by California was applicable to all persons on board the vessel.

§ 11. Same: Foreigners on board. This law applies not only to citizens and inhabitants of the nation from which the ship sailed, but to foreigners as well; it controls not only the civil rights of the parties on board, but it also makes criminal acts, done on board, offenses against the criminal laws of the ship's nation. In Regina

(8) 121 California, 620.

v. Sattler (9), the court said that any persons on board an English ship on the high seas, not within the territory of any foreign nation, whether such persons be foreign or English, are as much amenable to English law as if they were on English soil. It was held that a foreigner who had killed another on board an English ship was guilty of murder.

These cases, where the vessel at the time the right arises is not within the territorial jurisdiction of some other nation, but on the high seas, do not present a conflict between the law of the nation to which the vessel belongs and some other law. A single law, only, can with any plausibility be made applicable. It points, however, to the possibility of such a conflict, when the vessel, carrying with it the law of its nation, sails into the harbor or port of another nation, and thus makes it conceivable that the nation where the ship physically is may have some voice in determining by what laws it shall be governed.

§ 12. Same: From American states. The rule stated in the preceding subsection is of general application. Owing to the dual character of the law-giving power in the states of the Union, a unique and peculiar condition results as to what law controls a vessel that sails from one of the states. As to certain fields of law the states have retained their power to legislate and to provide the law to be applied; as to others they have delegated the law-making power to the national government. The fact that such a division has been made has a bearing upon

(9) 1 D. & B. 525.

the law to which is subject a vessel on the high seas flying the flag of a state. The division is made between laws regulating civil rights merely and those regulating crimes on the high seas. As the latter have been placed under the exclusive legislative power of the Federal government, the criminal codes of the states have no application on board their vessels after they leave their boundaries. On the other hand, the same vessel looks to the laws of its state to provide the rule to determine the civil rights of the parties on board (10).

§ 13. Same: Illustration. A conflict of laws has resulted in a few cases, as a result of the failure to perceive the composite character of the law regulating a vessel sailing from a state of the Union. In Crapo v. Kelly (11) a vessel sailed from the state of Massachusetts, and, while on the high seas, an insolvency proceeding was brought against the owner in Massachusetts. By virtue of this proceeding it was claimed title had passed under the laws of Massachusetts to the owner's assignee in insolvency. After these insolvency proceedings had been taken, the vessel came within the boundaries of the state of New York, and an attachment was levied on her there to satisfy a claim against the former owner. If, at the time the vessel was on the high seas, the laws of Massachusetts controlled, the subsequent attachment on the ground that the vessel was still owned by the insolvent was void, as a new owner had stepped in. If, however, as was contended, the law of the Federal government alone was operative when she had gone upon the high seas, then

(10)

McDonald v. Mallory, 77 New York, 546. (11) 16 Wall. (U. S.), 610.

the insolvency proceedings under Massachusetts law had no effect. The court held the Massachusetts law was applicable to control this civil matter, and that as to such matters the Federal laws did not apply. The vessel was controlled by the state law in civil matters, and by the Federal law in criminal. The title of the assignee, acquired by operation of the Massachusetts law, was sustained, to the exclusion of any Federal law.

§ 14. Ships within foreign territory. Ships sailing on the high seas do not present cases of accession of the territory of one nation to another. When such floating territory has arrived within three miles of such nation, or entered a port or harbor, it can then, for the first time, be said that the territory of a foreign nation has been added to its territory. Under such conditions, by whose laws shall the newly, though temporarily, added territory be governed? What nation shall supply the laws to regulate the rights of those on board-the law of the nation from which the vessel came, or the law of the nation where it has arrived or anchored? If the movement were simply a movement of a railway train from one state into another, the law of the state where the passengers and train were, as a physical fact, would control. This would be stated as the rule without much hesitation.

§ 15. Same: Criminal acts on ships. In the case of sea-going ships the answer cannot be so readily given. In Regina v. Lesley (12), certain subjects of Chili in South America were banished by the government from Chili to England. The defendant, the master of an Eng

(12) 8 Cox C. C. 269.

lish merchant vessel lying in the waters of Chili, contracted with the government of Chili to take the banished persons to England. They were placed upon the vessel and taken by the master to Liverpool. The banished persons brought a criminal action against the master for having falsely imprisoned them on the English ship. Two points are raised in the case: First, could the master be made criminally liable for what he did within three miles of the shore of the government of Chili? As to this the court answered he could not be. The court said: "Although an English ship in some respects carries with her the laws of her country, in the territorial waters of a foreign state, yet in other respects she is subject to the laws of that state as to acts done to the subjects thereof." The court here recognized that, as to acts done to the banished men while the ship was in Chilian waters, the English law had no power to punish, another law being effective. The second point determined by the court was that, as to the act of continuing to keep the banished men imprisoned after the ship had left the Chilian waters, the master was guilty of a false imprisonment and sentenced him. The latter point is merely an application of the principle before stated, that, on the high seas, the nation whose flag the ship flies furnishes the law to which those on board owe obedience.

§ 16. Same: (continued). In Wildenhus's Case (13) a subject of Belgium, whose name was Wildenhus, was one of a crew of a Belgian steamship, Nordland, lying moored at the dock of the port of Jersey City, New Jer

(13) 120 U. S., 1.